Political polling

[J Ed]

Most things do seem to point to a healthy tory majority. 100+ seats would be a shocker though.

The thing is though that the projections are so wildly different, there can't be any middle ground here surely.

The Tories are continuing to campaign in Labour areas BUT on the other hand, they also do seem rattled by the polling as you can see from the constant re-launches.

 

[killer b]

 

[Raheem]

Apparently, Panelbase have radically adjusted their turnout model and it would have been a two-point lead using their previous model (according to a poster at ukpollingreport).

If that's correct, it would suggest things are moving a lot at the moment.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

It seems a bit dumb of them to change their model half way through. If there's one thing that is useful in polling it is the trend that a particular poll has rather than the absolute number, which is always bloody wrong for most polls anyway. Oh well, makes things a whole lot more interesting if you're into betting on these things.

 

[JTG]

Panelbase released one the other day that was a week out of date showing a 15 point lead. Got lots of Tories excited on twitter until it was pointed out how old the data was

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Amazing how quickly it's changing. A week ago, I was just starting to believe that a hung parliament had the tiniest of slithers of possibility to it. Now, I'm not so sure I'd bet against it.

It's the hope that kills ya.

 

[Wilf]

The methodological problems of doing national surveys have got so bad that they probably shouldn't be doing national polls anymore. Just about the only thing they tell you is the movement in the figures from poll to poll by the same polling company. Probably better to just blitz 20 constituencies and then come up with conclusions no stronger than 'Labour look vulnerable in X', 'Tories look like keeping Y'. The parties will still do their own polls and will spin the fuck out of them, but the ritual of newspapers commissioning national polls is built around some mutual bullshit that they offer scientific measurement.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Just about the only thing they tell you is the movement in the figures from poll to poll by the same polling company.

That's not nothing, though, and the direction of movement has been consistent across the companies. That's the main thing I've been looking at. Trying to avoid the temptation only to believe the good or bad news.

 

[Idris2002]

The methodological problems of doing national surveys have got so bad that they probably shouldn't be doing national polls anymore. Just about the only thing they tell you is the movement in the figures from poll to poll by the same polling company. Probably better to just blitz 20 constituencies and then come up with conclusions no stronger than 'Labour look vulnerable in X', 'Tories look like keeping Y'. The parties will still do their own polls and will spin the fuck out of them, but the ritual of newspapers commissioning national polls is built around some mutual bullshit that they offer scientific measurement.

When I did market research (in general, not just for politics stuff) I came away convinced that people would tell you the first thing that came into your head.

 

[8den]

Amazing how quickly it's changing. A week ago, I was just starting to believe that a hung parliament had the tiniest of slithers of possibility to it. Now, I'm not so sure I'd bet against it.

It's the hope that kills ya.

Another pleasant dream is the inevitable Tory bloodbath if they lose. Who might return from the shadows to take the Throne? And we might have the joyous sight of Michael Gove giving himself another fatal injury while stabbing someone in the back.

 

[Raheem]

When I did market research (in general, not just for politics stuff) I came away convinced that people would tell you the first thing that came into your head.

Was this at a mindreaders' convention?

 

[killer b]

hehe

 

[Wilf]

When I did market research (in general, not just for politics stuff) I came away convinced that people would tell you the first thing that came into your head.

Idris, in action earlier.

 

[Raheem]

It seems a bit dumb of them to change their model half way through. If there's one thing that is useful in polling it is the trend that a particular poll has rather than the absolute number, which is always bloody wrong for most polls anyway. Oh well, makes things a whole lot more interesting if you're into betting on these things.

It's cos their overriding objective is to be the closest to the actual result. Although it does seem odd that they are mostly hoping to achieve this by repeatedly deciding that they still haven't skewed their number quite enough in favour of the Tories.

 

[danny la rouge]

YouGov | The pollsters’ experimental election


"The reason the polls got the 2015 election wrong was down to sampling, particularly among young people. The sort of young people who took part in polls were too engaged and too likely to vote, meaning polls ended up with too many young people voting. Polling companies have taken different approaches to solving this, but they broadly fall into two categories. Some have tried to improve their samples to reduce the number of people who are very interested in politics. Others have changed their turnout models so that they assume the same low level of turnout among young people as happened in 2015."

 

[littlebabyjesus]

YouGov | The pollsters’ experimental election


"The reason the polls got the 2015 election wrong was down to sampling, particularly among young people. The sort of young people who took part in polls were too engaged and too likely to vote, meaning polls ended up with too many young people voting. Polling companies have taken different approaches to solving this, but they broadly fall into two categories. Some have tried to improve their samples to reduce the number of people who are very interested in politics. Others have changed their turnout models so that they assume the same low level of turnout among young people as happened in 2015."

Ta for that. It explains clearly the differences between the two camps (and indeed why there are two camps). So if Labour really have enthused younger voters, the narrow polls are to be believed. If not, the wider ones are.

Thing is though that the wider polls assuming the same low young person turnout as 2015 are now coming down under double digits. I am encouraged by the reason for the wider-gap polls being as they are. I really do think it is more than possible that Corbyn will enthuse more young people than Milliband did in 2015. The wide-gap polls are doing their best not to believe their own figures based on past mistakes, but each election has its own dynamic, and this one feels a little different - I feel some hope in the air around Corbyn that just wasn't there last time.

 

[J Ed]

Is there any reason to think that there would be an increase on 2015 youth turnout, something closer to 2010?

Surely a lot of the 2010 youth turnout was due to the Cleggmania nonsense, which has in some ways perhaps found an equivalent in Corbyn.

 

[danny la rouge]

Pessimism of the intellect.

Those of us who wanted a Yes win in 2014 felt hopeful a week out from polling day. Even those of us who'd been pessimistic/realistic for years. The morning of 19th September wasn't a happy morning.

 

[Teaboy]

Is there any reason to think that there would be an increase on 2015 youth turnout, something closer to 2010?

Surely a lot of the 2010 youth turnout was due to the Cleggmania nonsense, which has in some ways perhaps found an equivalent in Corbyn.

I was thinking exactly that. And whilst Cleggmania made a lot of noise it didn't really do much for the lib dems. I have this feeling we've all been here before.

 

[J Ed]

I was thinking exactly that. And whilst Cleggmania made a lot of noise it didn't really do much for the lib dems. I have this feeling we've all been here before.

I don't think you understand the point I was making, though I did not explain it very well!

The most favourable polling for Labour, Yougov, is predicated on a model of higher youth turnout than 2015 though still lower than 2010.

YouGov | The pollsters’ experimental election

Looking at estimates from past elections from the House of Commons library, in 2015 the turnout gap between young and old was 35 points, in 2010 it was 23 points, in 2005 it was 36 points. In other words, we’re showing a smaller gap than in 2015, but similar to 2010 and not one that we think is totally unrealistic if Jeremy Corbyn has enthused younger people

I am speculating, I don't know, on the cause of that higher level of youth turnout and wondering whether it might be because of Cleggmania. If Labour is able to mobilise younger voters in the same way that the Lib Dems did, which is still reasonably modest, then that looks very good for Labour.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Is there any reason to think that there would be an increase on 2015 youth turnout, something closer to 2010?

Surely a lot of the 2010 youth turnout was due to the Cleggmania nonsense, which has in some ways perhaps found an equivalent in Corbyn.

I don't have the stats, but my suspicion is that the variation in overall turnouts election to election is mostly down to volatility at the younger end, with older people voting in relatively similar high numbers each time. If that's right, it does mean that the younger end varies a lot up and down each election depending on what? On whether or not someone or something has inspired them to vote. Milliband's shower inspired nobody - my bias may be at work here, but I can't help thinking that models assuming young apathy to Milliband levels must be wrong.

 

[Teaboy]

I don't think you understand the point I was making, though I did not explain it very well!

The most favourable polling for Labour, Yougov, is predicated on a model of higher youth turnout than 2015 though still lower than 2010.

YouGov | The pollsters’ experimental election



I am speculating, I don't know, on the cause of that higher level of youth turnout and wondering whether it might be because of Cleggmania. If Labour is able to mobilise younger voters in the same way that the Lib Dems did, which is still reasonably modest, then that looks very good for Labour.

Ah. I see.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I don't think you understand the point I was making, though I did not explain it very well!

The most favourable polling for Labour, Yougov, is predicated on a model of higher youth turnout than 2015 though still lower than 2010.

YouGov | The pollsters’ experimental election



I am speculating, I don't know, on the cause of that higher level of youth turnout and wondering whether it might be because of Cleggmania. If Labour is able to mobilise younger voters in the same way that the Lib Dems did, which is still reasonably modest, then that looks very good for Labour.

You're as biased as me, no doubt, but it's hard not to think this.

 

[J Ed]

I don't have the stats, but my suspicion is that the variation in overall turnouts election to election is mostly down to volatility at the younger end, with older people voting in relatively similar high numbers each time. If that's right, it does mean that the younger end varies a lot up and down each election depending on what? On whether or not someone or something has inspired them to vote. Milliband's shower inspired nobody - my bias may be at work here, but I can't help thinking that models assuming young apathy to Milliband levels must be wrong.

What efforts have been made at getting the young to vote for Corbyn? I am genuinely asking. I know there's the grime for Corbyn thing, am I right to say that there has been a good amount of effort at voter registration at universities?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

What efforts have been made at getting the young to vote for Corbyn? I am genuinely asking. I know there's the grime for Corbyn thing, am I right to say that there has been a good amount of effort at voter registration at universities?

I don't know either, but this is where grassroots volunteer stuff makes a difference, and all the noises I've heard about that are that there has been more from Labour this time around.

I wonder how much Clegg's pledge on tuition fees made a difference in getting young people out in 2010. There's a direct parallel if that was a significant factor.

 

[not-bono-ever]

urbs - I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability - but I have a bad feeling that hope will be cruelly dashed

 

[agricola]

Is there any reason to think that there would be an increase on 2015 youth turnout, something closer to 2010?

Surely a lot of the 2010 youth turnout was due to the Cleggmania nonsense, which has in some ways perhaps found an equivalent in Corbyn.

TBH I'd be amazed if the turnout among the younger age groups wasn't on a scale much bigger than 2010. They have never been gone after in the way that Labour have in this campaign, and I think even they would realize that the chances are they are never going to be offered it again.

 

[J Ed]

TBH I'd be amazed if the turnout among the younger age groups wasn't on a scale much bigger than 2010. They have never been gone after in the way that Labour have in this campaign, and I think even they would realize that the chances are they are never going to be offered it again.

I hope so. IMO the Grime for Corbyn thing is really good because it's one of the first campaigns I've seen at getting younger people to vote that isn't explicitly aimed at students and graduates. It was also organised by people outside the Labour Party I think originally.

 

[Idris2002]

Was this at a mindreaders' convention?

 

[agricola]

I hope so. IMO the Grime for Corbyn thing is really good because it's one of the first campaigns I've seen at getting younger people to vote that isn't explicitly aimed at graduates.

It was much better than that unlocking nonsense of a few days ago, which was probably the worst thing they have done all campaign.